[jacquesm]

That's what I meant with 'people splitting legal hairs'.

Which part of 'modifying a natural organism and patenting that modification which then can spread through the normal means of natural replication is fundamentally wrong' is it that is giving you problems?

I know the patent is legit, I understand that such patents are common and that is exactly where I see the problem.

What the far reaching consequences are is beyond my grasp, all I see is a money grab by a very large company at the expense of those that do the hard work to feed us, and that they are concentrating on staple foods because getting a substantial royalty on staple foods puts the world at their feet.

See 'basmati' and a bunch of other stunts they've tried.

[dionidium]

What? This is exactly the opposite situation. It is a money grab, all right, but by a farmer who wants to extract all of the value out of Monsanto's tech by exploiting a "loop hole" in the agreement he signed with them.

Here's the deal: farmers are under zero obligation to use genetically modified seeds. They are free to use traditional seeds. Why don't they do that, then? Because Monsanto's technology is a really, really good deal for them! It produces better yields at lower costs. It is not ridiculous to establish legal systems that protect the further development of such technologies and your small-farmer-versus-the-mega-corp Disney movie synopsis adds nothing to the conversation.

[skosuri]

I'm not sure what you are quoting, but the problem I have with your quote is that you are saying all modern biotechnology should have no intellectual property protection.